Author: Eve Barrow

A man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree, he turns away. Show him facts, he questions the source. Appeal to logic, he fails to see your point.

Leon Festinger, 1956.

Make him laugh, will he lay down his defences?

In today’s divided political landscape, meaningful conversation with those who see things differently feels like a dying art. There should be no deliberation on whether political polarisation is a serious problem-but does it require a serious solution?

Proposed remedies for bridging the burgeoning divide range from cross-partisan dialogue, fact-checking formats and the role of social media. Here, I focus on humour’s unique ability to disarm and depolarise.

Understanding psychological motivations which drive our political instincts begs the question, is the key to reducing polarisation more facts, or could it be more jokes?

The Problem

Political polarisation has been dissected endlessly by academics who blame political elites, electoral systems and  overall decline in civic engagement. Our current political consumption habits tend toward polarised content, with people more likely to engage in virulent debate and frame like-minded peers positively while intensifying negative perceptions of those out-group members.  Demonising political opponents through polarising rhetoric makes unity that much harder to achieve as our personal beliefs become social barriers. Underpinning this phenomenon is our cognitive dissonance, which locks us into rigid ideological positions.

Whye we Resist Opposing Views – The Psychology Behind It All

People tend to try and keep their values and preferences consistent with each other. When this isn’t the case, we experience psychological discomfort- dissonance. In a politically polarised world, this discomfort is particularly pronounced because we often surround ourselves with voices that echo our own beliefs. It then becomes uncomfortable to encounter alternative perspectives especially when they don’t just challenge our opinions but shake the very values that define us.

In politically polarised environments, exposure to alternative viewpoints does not lead to open-minded reconsideration; instead, it triggers our defence mechanisms. One common response is to reinterpret evidence to fit our preexisting views.  For instance, when presented with scientific consensus on climate change, sceptics will selectively emphasise uncertainties in sources or data to justify maintaining their stance.

We can also trivialise information to reduce our dissonance. This is to acknowledge contradictory evidence but minimise its significance. This happens a lot during political scandals, when voters acknowledge their preferred candidate’s wrongdoing but dismiss it as insignificant compared to the opposition’s misconduct. ‘Trump may have grabbed her by the…BUT what about Hillary’s emails!!!’  Trivialisation allows individuals to avoid discomfort and maintain ideological positions without needing to change their stance when it doesn’t align with their values.

Understanding our cognitive dissonance helps explain the persistence of political polarisation. Rather than fostering deliberation, exposure to conflicting perspectives can entrench divisions as we feel compelled to dismiss or distort inconvenient truths. Exploring the unique ability of comedy to disarm this defensiveness and encourage self-reflection helps explain how it can be used as powerful tool in bridging ideological divides and reducing political polarisation.

Laughter is the Best Medicine – Humour as a Depolarising Force

Humour cuts political tension like a knife, disarming defensiveness and promoting unexpected dialogue. It works on both emotional and attitudinal levels to do so.

When information is presented humorously, we often perceive it as less threatening. One explanation for this is that humour works as a relief valve, alleviating tension by creating general positive emotions among its audience. This softens a person’s negative perception toward the target of the humour, by extension mitigating the unfavourable opinions a person may hold. Humour-induced positive emotions reduce our impulse to counter-argue, lowering resistance to opposing perspectives and can encourage us all to take a breath and listen when encountering those with political differences. Humour’s ability to evoke positive emotions and reduce our defensive impulses makes it a powerful tool for softening political divisions.

Humour not only helps control for the emotional aspect of polarisation, but it can also have an attitudinal effect. We often dismiss offensive comments with “it’s just a joke” – But what if we flipped this defence mechanism into something constructive?

Humour can reduce polarisation through the ‘discounting effect’ , where people perceive contentious political messages differently.  Often, we don’t end up critically engaging with the meaning behind the joke straightaway because we are too preoccupied with the humorous way it is presented. Addressing political issues this way triggers a cognitive pause which allows us to entertain alternative viewpoints without feeling like we are being ideologically disloyal. As political identity is deeply personal, we interpret challenges to our political beliefs as attacks on our character. Instead of viewing political discourse as a “battle” to defend our ideological stance, humour creates a distinct opportunity for momentarily stepping outside our political identity and consider alternative ideas without feeling pressured to outright accept or reject.

Punchlines that Push us Apart?

This is not to say humour is a cure-all remedy; in fact, it’s important to recognise how humour could reinforce differences depending on how it is used. Not all comedy is equal in easing tension. Self-deprecating parody may humanise a candidate, making voters more receptive and creating opportunity for shared amusement across party lines. However, critical satire targeting specific individuals or institutions risks offending and alienating people even further. Mocking certain groups can reinforce partisan identities. Satire seeks to strike not soothe, making its ability to reduce polarisation highly debatable.

While mere exposure to comedic messages will not depolarise society and it’s important to decipher who is laughing and at what, it could be a useful tool for changing how we engage with political adversaries.

It is crucial to understand how different approaches to communication influence political engagement. Humour alone won’t save democracy, but it could be a vital tool for creating space where opposing perspectives find common ground, minds are open to new ideas and honest dialogue is possible. Instead of shutting down conversations with ‘the other side’ maybe we should learn to laugh at ourselves (and each other) a little more.